Hi Ian
Whether you (or others) like it or not moq_discuss was set up as a
philosophy forum to discuss a particular subject.
In order to do that properly it is necessary to be able to understand
how write coherently and be able to string together sentences that are
consistent and coherent.
Unfortunately, some on this list are incapable of doing so and make
appeals to various nonsensical excuses to justify their sloppy efforts.
Metaphysics and philosophy in general are intellectual pursuits which
require thought and skill acquired by practice. They also require those
participating to understand mutually agreed definitions without which
communication is nigh on impossible.
Can you imagine other intellectual pursuits being conducted in a
similarly sloppy manner?
I'm not expecting every person on this list to be an academic
philosopher with a string of titles after their name but I do expect
every person that contributes to be able to put together a coherent
argument, or at the very least to be able to recognise one when it's in
front of their nose. If that's too much to ask then members should go
join the One Direction Fan Club and stop wasting time here.
And while I'm about it the 'ludicrous rule' about 4 posts a day is there
firstly to encourage members to think about what they're saying and not
treat MD as a receptacle for their verbal and written diarrhoea, and
secondly to prevent those with bugger all to say, taking 20 posts to say
it. The MoQ is about Quality, not quantity, something all members of MD
should think about.
I've made some comments below:
On 10/06/2013 05:42, Ian Glendinning wrote:
Hi Horse, and Khoo,
Inserted below:
On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 1:02 PM, Horse <[email protected]> wrote:
Khoo, before you go (and it's my sincere wish that you don't) could you
explain to me how one comes to a mystic understanding through intellect?
Neither myself, DMB, Ron, Arlo etc. etc. wish to denigrate DQ or subsume
it within Intellect.
[IG] Clearly no-one wishes to denigrate DQ, but wishing and acting are
different things.
Would you care to show me where either myself, DMB, Dan, Arlo etc. are
denigrating DQ?
We are not and snide comments such as this do little to help - this says
more about your state of mind than it does about ours.
The problem here is that some do not appear to understand the nature of a
philosophical discussion group. I have, I believe, experienced DQ through
both music and Iaido and I certainly have no wish to dismiss DQ as
irrelevant or otherwise. It was also DMB who managed to get it through my
thick skull that DQ is central to Quality so I know damn well that he
understands the DQ/Quality relationship.
However, using something called a 'DQ perspective' or claiming to be a
mystic in order to trash intellect is also immoral within an intellectual
environment.
[IG] This is where I ring the "straw man" bell. You are implying in your
impersonal statement, that certain persons ARE trashing intellect. Guessing
who you're talking about, I have to say, I haven't seen it.
Then try looking at and reading the sloppy and ill-informed garbage that
some try to pass off as philosophy.
You shout 'straw man' or 'SOM' or 'you're killing my DQ, man'
inappropriately whenever you have little else to argue with.
The inappropriate use of DQ in a sentence - 'DQ perspective', 'DQ
thinking' etc. - just shows a lack of understanding of the MoQ
especially where this is used to justify sloppy thinking. If you can't
see that then the fault lies with you.
So if you haven't already unsubscribed please explain to me where I am
being unreasonable.
[IG] Ah, therein lies the rub. Unreasonable depends on your definition of
reason. Pirsig and MoQ attempts to widen GOF-Intellect beyond the simple,
classical concepts.
Pirsig did not attempt to widen reason to the point where it becomes
meaningless gibberish, just as having an open mind doesn't mean that it
has to be so open your brain falls out. Your failure to answer my
question (even though it wasn't put to you) by waving your hands about
speaks volumes.
Are you so sure that like many others you aren't confusing the MoQ (static
quality) with DQ just as some in the past have confused the MoQ with
reality!!!
Yes, DQ is central to Quality but the MoQ is not a synonym for Quality -
or do you believe otherwise?
[IG] I can't imagine anyone less confused about that than Khoo. I think the
real problem is those confusing MoQ-Informed Intellect with GOF-SOMist
Intellect. Allowing their love of intellect to kill Quality - as ever the
truer path is the one of balance.
And there you go again - if others don't agree with you just accuse them
of being SOM-ist or unable to get out of SOM or some other similar nonsense.
I've watched you and others inappropriately use this pretext over and
over again when you have no argument or can't be arsed to think about
what someone else is saying. It's lazy and dishonest.
Horse
--
"Without music to decorate it, time is just a bunch of boring production deadlines
or dates by which bills must be paid."
— Frank Zappa
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org/md/archives.html
